we will no longer be a member of that. but she wants to secure the best possible trading relationship with and within the european market. a lot of that is kind of where we thought it had drifted to. are there any areas where there are still going to be open questions, where there will be some fudge? yes, on the customs union, which is about tariff—free trade, the prime minister will be more nuanced and slightly less definitive, and say she wants the broadest trading relationship and she wants it to be tariff—free, but that will be a political negotiation saying, do you really want to have something like the uk on the the outside, and it will illustrate a wider theme for the prime minister. she will be saying to a uk and an eu audience, do not assume i'm going for any current arrangement that is on the shelf for non—eu members. she will say she is looking
for a bespoke dealfor the uk and it is reported one important theme, the prime minister will be respectful to the 27 other leaders of eu and say she wants a deal that works for the whole of the uk and a deal that works for the rest of the uk, because unlike donald trump, she wants the eu to thrive. so we thought we would look at some of these issues. a centralised european government would be a nightmare. such a europe can, in its economic and political strength, be a superpower. a superpower, but not a superstate. we will give the british people a referendum with a simple in or out choice. thatcher in bruges, blair in warsaw, cameron at bloomburg, and now theresa may closer to home. we have been waiting a long
time for this moment, but the prime minister will deliver her definitive speech on europe as she explains how she is going to take the uk out of the eu. it will be detailed, as she answers critics who have chided herfor relying on platitudes such as brexit means brexit. theresa may is expected to make clear that britain is prepared to leave the single market, which lays down common standards to eliminate non—tariff barriers. but she wants to hug the eu close. i want it to give british companies the maximum freedom to trade with and operate within the single market and let european businesses do the same here. we should expect a more nuanced approach on the customs union that lets members trade tariff—free on goods and sets terms
of trade with non—members. the prime minister wants to keep her options open and it is likely she will say say we should not assume the uk will follow any of the existing models as she tries to deliver a bespoke dealfor britain. i hope we leave the customs union. first, only outside of the customs union can we sign free trade agreements with the large growing economies, and that is one of the great opportunities of brexit, and it can turbo charge our economy and we can cut the cost of goods that people buy. take back control — that was the winning slogan of the vote leave campaign. but what does that mean on immigration? it means it will be the uk and the british people and the british parliament that are in charge of designing our immigration policy. so it won't be brussels, it will be us here. and the nature of that policy
is something we need to have a conversation about. we have to figure out what do we want to do? the brexit negotiations will follow two tracks. the divorce talks, and the negotiations on the uk's future relationship with the eu. the chancellor has said he would like to agree a transitional deal for the next stage if we fail to agree a new framework within the deadline. let's at how long it took the eu to deal with south korea that took four years. it took the eu seven years to negotiate a deal with canada. those countries outside did you sit —— the
eu seeking access. tomorrow, theresa may will deliver one of the most important speeches of her premiership, but she has wider ambitions and hopes to be the first tory prime minister in half a century not to be defined by europe. perhaps an issue for the country is this — is there an alternative to the vision we'll get tomorrow? labour have said they want to put more weight on keeping trade with the eu open, but the party is also suggesting that free movement will not be as free. and as soon as you say that, do you not then get straight back to theresa may's version of brexit? this is after all up to the eu as well as us? well, labour is trying to carve out a distinct position. keir starmer is the shadow brexit secretary, and i spoke to him this afternoon. can we have less free movement, and keep all the trade? we have to decide how we front up to these negotiations. there is a phoney war going on, where lots of things are being said. these are negotiations, and we need to aim for the best deal for the uk.
that is a deal that works for trade, it is a deal that accepts there has to be change on the freedom of movement rules. that's the starting position. what i don't want is the... that is theresa may's position. well, let's hearfrom it her. she doesn't want tariffs. she's not said that across the board for all businesses etc. now, tomorrow's her chance to do so. at the moment, every time she speaks the markets react. she's got to really reassure us about what she's aiming for. customs union. do you want us to be in the customs union and have the ability to sign trade agreements with trump and whoever else wants to do them with us? or do you think we should stay in the customs union and then not have the right to sign agreements elsewhere? at the moment, preserving our ability to trade successfully in europe has to be the priority, and it is the priority for business. and given the concerns that i have laid out, then obviously staying in the customs union is the best way to achieve that. so you — because this is interesting and topical today — you basically, your policy is,
we don't want a trade deal with the united states, we would rather stay in the eu customs union, because that facilitates our trade with the eu, which is bigger than the us as far as we are concerned. given the amount of trade we've got with europe, it is really important that we get the right deal with europe and we are not distracted at this critical period by hypothetical deals, the terms of which we don't know, but some future unspecified. you have been very clear on that. how will you tactically play this? because it seems quite likely there will be a parliament vote on article 50. you will vote to invoke article 50 correct and you won't seek to amend the legislation? perhaps i should lay out what we do intend to do. we have been pressing for a plan, and we are now promised a plan before article 50 is invoked. we are looking at amendments to the legislation. we do want to make sure that during the two—year negotiating period the government is required to come back to parliament to report and we absolutely want and will push for a vote at the end
of the negotiating exercise. so there has to be grip throughout the entire process. we are only at the start, we are not at the end, but that grip needs to be put in right. i want to be clear about two things. at the beginning, will you vote to delay article 50, or not pass the article 50 bill if it isn't the kind of brexit that you want? we have been clear that we are not going to frustrate the process. what we now need to do is — through amendments, through reporting back, through the vote at the end — to make sure there is grip to make sure that the deal at the end is the right deal. the other one, though, if you're going to have a vote, and help me with this, you're going to have a vote at the end of the process. this is your idea, parliament must vote at the end. what is the plan if parliament votes it down? if you have a vote and it is meaningful, you have got to be able to vote against the final deal. what is the counter factual if you vote against it? we need to be able to vote
in time for the government to negotiate further. so the vote needs to come at the right time. the idea that somehow... you're going to vote before the end of the two years? no, before the deal is put, the final deal is put to the european parliament. so obviously there needs to be a vote before that happens to ensure that the right deal is put to the parliament. your idea is if you voted it down, i just want to be clear about this, you could vote it down, say in autumn 2018 or something like that, that gives the government then time to go back negotiate some more? i think that the right way to do this is for the government to report back, so we know the direction of travel and how progress is being made. i hope the government will come up with a deal which is acceptable. they have said many times they want consensus. this is a matter of the national interest, so its important that parliament has a say. but the idea that the european parliament will have a vote
on the deal, but the westminster parliament won't only has to be said to be seen to be seen to be absurd. i suppose what i'm thinking deep down, if you're going to have a serious option to reject the renegotiation or the negotiation of our exit, where are we left if you turn it down? suppose it is too late to negotiate an alternative. it has all come at the end, at the last minute and we haven't got time. don't you then basically have to go back to another referendum and say... i'm not advocating that, but what i'm advocating is parliamentary accountability of the deal and having a vote on the deal at the end of exercise. that puts grip into the process and ensures the government gets the best deal for the country. the idea of parliament not having any meaningful role in the entire process, at a time when the chancellor is saying that he is prepared to even threaten the economic model that we have had pretty well since the second world war, is unthinkable in a modern democracy. let's just talk about what the chancellor said,
because it was to a german magazine yesterday, a newspaper yesterday, and he said if you play too tough with us and make our life really difficult, we will change our model and we will become a very low tax, offshore sort of enterprise centre which makes us competitive again and maybe more like singapore. i assume that is a very unattractive option to you. it is very unattractive. i don't think it's helpful as we go into the start of negotiations to engage in this war of words with those that we are negotiating with. there is also no democratic legitimacy to say that we are going to rip up the economic model that we have based our economics on since the second world war without any reference to parliament — there's not been a debate in parliament about this, there has been no discussion of it, is to avoid any accountability for the government's position. keir starmer, thanks very much. thank you. that was the keir starmer
and labour view. inside the customs union. there are others who want a more clean break and they want it all to happen more quickly, with less pandering to endless negotiation and transition deals. lord lawson, for example, is more or less arguing that we should move asap to the rules of the world trade organisation, accept there would be some tariffs in trade with the eu, and that we should not entertain fantasies about the other members wanting to negotiate a new trade deal with us. don't waste time is his message. let us talk now though, to michael gove, former justice secretary and co—convenor of the vote leave campaign. if you've not been hiding in a cupboard all day you'll also know he's just back from america where he's been interviewing donald trump. good evening. do you agree, it seems to be settling around the customs union, the single market is gone, as an issue, it is the customs union there was a period in the aftermath
when some argued we should remain in the single market. that was a big issue. it seems like the divide in oui’ issue. it seems like the divide in ourdiet issue. it seems like the divide in our diet the commons is whether we should stay. philip hammond is a fan, you are not? there's a continuing and subtlety about the government positions. we think would be better off outside because of the reasons in the package earlier, being outside means we can negotiate our own trade deals with other countries. in her speech tomorrow
the prime minister will set a direction of travel that will take us direction of travel that will take us out of the customs union but i suspect she will acknowledge it's not as simple as clicking your fingers, but i believe it is the desirable outcome. one of the things i have said today in other interviews is not in government any more, i don't have access to as
things seem to me on the basis of the facts, i would be outside. as everi the facts, i would be outside. as ever i will allow the possibility i might be wrong. a loyal member of the party and you will support them. other aspects of brexit, headline aspect, transition deal, a lot of brexiteers basically think that a transition period is slowing it all down, potentially kicking it into the long grass, how long for you do you think a transition could be, and kind of still be compatible with the views of the public? until i see any transition deal, then i would not be certain whether or not it was a good thing or a bad thing, i can see the case that has been made, particularly in the realm of financial services there are people concerned about what might be termed a cliff edge. i'm radically sceptical about that position, i think that certainty, a clean "brexit", would be in all our interests.
in the spirit of openness, to the possibility of me being wrong, i am prepared to see the case put. timescale, do you think two years, four years, 28 years, you would say, come on, that is ridiculous, but what about three years? my own instinct, my firm preference would be that we should be firm and clear about what opposition is with respect to the european union by 2019, we should not have a transactional deal after that, i will look at one... iwillbe it is exact year as you said, the clear advantages are outside of the customs union, midge transition. moving on to immigration, i am interested on whether you believe eu citizens should have some kind of access to the uk that is maybe not given to everybody else, server example, if an eu citizen has a job in the uk, a job offer in the uk, would you be happy for them to come and have the right to work in the uk.
my strong preference is that we should have absolute autonomy, and equality between non—eu and eu citizens, colour—blind, non—discriminatory, in the final deal, as i said, i am open—minded, i would not want to strain at a gnat, as it were, if there were a specific preference given to belgian dentist over other dentists and that was the prize of securing a deal in which everything else was perfect, i would be perfectly happy. my strong preference is that we should have absolute autonomy, and equality between non—eu and eu citizens, colour—blind, non—discriminatory, in the final deal, as i said, i am open—minded, i would not want to strain at a gnat, as it were, if there were a specific preference given to belgian dentist over other dentists and that was the prize of securing a deal in which everything else was perfect, i would be perfectly happy. can i be clear, in 2020, i come back from my holiday in spain, i come back and i arrive i arrive at luton airport, there is going to be two queues for passport control, one is going to say, uk citizens go this way, the other is going to say, europe, india china, america, you go that way, will that be how it is?
i suspect the former, america has a situation where it is american citizens and their different types of these, excel rated access if you have the right type of these, we make grants the right type of visa to some workers and like that. philip hammond set out a plan b, if you give us a tough time, we will have to make ourselves competitive. something of a threat to your economy, changing the model if necessary. do you think that was a good tactic, was it a good vision for what britain could be post "brexit"? i think that it was wise and it was a nuanced position, the eu 27 have all the cards, that is the assumption, three things have happened in the last few weeks that show that is not that sensible, the first, ee forehand eu negotiator made it clear that access to the city of london and capital markets is important for the eu 27. when we take hold of economic
levers, we can make ourselves a more attractive destination for investment and also the dental trade deal from the president—elect, that alters the terms of trade. we do see a paradox, many people, and everybody interprets the public vote in their own way, there is a paradox, many people saw it as something of a rejection of a way that things had been done, against big business, your campaign address that, a feeling that these people have been getting away with murder, they do not pay tax, running around the world doing what they want, the irony that post "brexit", we would become a tax saving for big companies, is that what the public had intended when they made that vote ? good point but there is a distinct in to be made, there is a corporatist boss approach reading the rules of the market in favour of the incumbents and the already wealthy. there is a slightly different approach, i would argue radically
different, which says that we are in favour of free markets but not big business... you are talking about cutting the taxes of internationally mobile companies, they have got to be internationally mobile, in order to come here and pay the reduced tax rates, is that what people thought they were getting, lower taxes for internationally mobile big businesses? morejobs, making sure our economy flourishes, but there is a critical distinction here, which, again, was... it emerged during the referendum campaign, you are absolutely right, we have in the european union not a free market but a rigged market, one which favours big business because they can direct rules... making it more difficult for the new companies that we want to see generating growth and jobs, it is a big argument... not one for right now. one very quick one, you wrote theresa may's speech last week, you wrote your version of it in the times newspaper, indeed you mocked the british aid
budget, you said that there was too much, 2020, "brexit" britain, more common—sense, less run for the benefit of... do you think we will stick with the aid target, the overseas aid target? i think the government will... should it? i have a whole approach to how we might actually tackle international, but that is a subject for another day. digging into the trade situation, the incoming president of the united states, in easy interview with michael gove and the german journalist said that he wanted a trade deal with the uk, a free—trade deal. of some sort. that is surely a boost to the britain's brexit trajectory. can the us replace anything we lose from the eu? naga munchetty has been looking at what the prospects for a quick deal are. voiceover: he thinks that he's
going to get something dr‘é zen ser';';~!z;::..,.. ,. , the president—elect‘s comments when interviewed by the former justice secretary michael gove for the times newspaper said, i love the uk, and, that it was so smart in getting out. that contrasts sharply with the outgoing us administration which warned: the uk will be at the back of the queue. if he voted to leave the european union. when asked directly if trump would put britain at the front of the queue, his answer," i think you're doing great, i think it's going great... not exactly a straight yes. how can a quick trade deal he signed, sealed and delivered if the uk is not allowed to negotiate any free—trade agreements while a member of the year? we are looking at two years from when theresa may triggers article 50, at the end of march, at the latest. i have been impressed separately
by work that has been done by... michael gove cited a leading expert in trade deals, saying that a trade deal with the us could increasejobs and growth significantly and could be negotiated, this is where lines could be blurred, there is an assumption that yields can be spent, felt out, but not signed. the negotiation with the us is a relatively difficult thing to conclude. we simply don't know enough at this point to be able to say exactly how long it would take. donald trump says he is ready to start deal—making with theresa may as soon as he gets into the white house. he is accustomed to making business deals happen. now he needs the
support of congress. in terms of congress, the senate and the house, both controlled by republicans and republicans have in the senate and the house have advocated for more free—trade agreements. he will need to address the concerns of members who have constituency interests, regardless of their support of a uk us deal in principle. there is potential conflict over the pharmaceutical, agriculture and food safety industries, all of which operate under very different regulations. the us will want its agricultural exports to be able to, you know, get into the uk market, and it will depend upon our relationship with the eu, we may be able to be slightly more open on some things as long as we are able also to protect our farmers from subsidised and distorted agricultural products coming into our markets. from our perspective, financial services, other services, ensuring services, are very important to us in the us,
and the us has been quite restrictive on financial services. trump has the desire to establish a timely agreement, but this will certainly not be a straightforward business deal. michael gove is still with me. should we get are negotiating with the us now, while still members of the eu... a legal argument about how far you can go down that path? you certainly cannot sign a deal until outside the eu and outside the customs union but you can certainly have a conversation, sometimes quite detailed conversations, preparatory to that, staying in the eu, laying some of the ground work, no problem, no inconsistency. let's suppose that would come out, march 19, how long after can we signed a trade deal with the us? the will is there... if the will is there, and as has been pointed out, some of the issues we would require to be tackled, it would be theoretically possible to have done
most of the work in order to ensure the deal was signature ready by the time we leave in 2019. that would be my assumption. i stress, i am not a trade expert, not a trade negotiator. we heard there that it could take a long time, it might be quick, we have no idea. absolutely, the average trade deal i lateral trade deal between nations takes around two years to negotiate, if you have very sophisticated and developed economies, as ours is and america's, then it can take longer, but if you have a strong political will, that can accelerate the process. one of the other things that trump said in the interview is that he is minded to put a 35% tariff on bmws made in mexico and brought into the united states, he would be breaking apart the rules that the trading system of the world is painfully erected in the last 50 how do you think the world, the global community, should react when a big powerful
country tramples over the rules? the most important thing to recognise is that the taste forfree—trade, which the prime minister wants to make, she wants this country to be a global leader, should be made as vigorously as possible, something i disagree with donald trump about is his attachment to protection. he is not going to listen to you on it, he is not listening to anyone on it, his mind is made up, the people have spoken... he will not pay too much attention. what should the world do if he puts 35% tariff on bmw imports into the us, because he does not like that their plant? in terms of indicating a direction of travel, we have seen decisions made by american companies to keep jobs and shiftjobs. should bmw say sorry, we should move to the
united states and take jobs from mexico, or should the world frame a response to the person who breaks up the international trade system, which you are a supporter of. iam. what should the world do? at this stage, take it one step back, trump is making the first move in a negotiation and one thing about a negotiation with a deal maker like trump, his starting position won't be the end position. the first thing is to use the skills we have in the foreign office and the connections and others that we have in order to be able to ensure that we are in a position as far as possible to shape and frame american policy in a way that recognises... donald trump's desire to boostjobs and growth in america without going down the path that as you sketched would not be in all our interests. i have listened to a lot
of your interviews today, that is the weakest answer you have given. what do we do when this bloke does stuff that we really in our atlantic tradition have come to not like? he called nato obsolete. that entire programme would be devoted to that if we knew. yes, there were many scoops in the interview. first with respect to how we ensure that the world trading organisation succeeds, i'm not its general secretary, trade is not an area in which i have a professorship. but with nato it is important to recognise his position, and one interesting thing about trump, candidate trump and president trump occupy different positions. he gave the impression that he wanted to rip the whole thing up. but in the interview, it is clear he has two concerns about nato. you may feel they're
ill—founded, but it is that they don't do enough to counter islam terrorism and there is insufficient burden sharing. people can say that view is naive or wrong, but it is different from wanting to rip it up when we explore what the trump economic plan is, i don't think it the will have quite the same characterisation that... we draw from what he said so far. did your not heart sink when he trashed in odd phrases stuff that was dear to you — the iraq war, that was something of a dear cause to you. you must have... do you feel this guy is someone who is a friend of the british and churchill and our atlantic tradition, or do you think he is essentially an anethema. i am interested in where you stand. i said during the election that had i been an american i would have voted for hillary clinton.
now i think hillary clinton would be a stronger and better president for the world. but i think the american people made the right choice. but the right thing for our government to do is to have the best possible business—like relationship with the president, whoever he or she is. and the other thing i would say if you develop a good business—like relationship with donald trump, then my belief is you mitigate the worst parts of him and encourage his better. did you tell him that you thought hillary clinton would be a better president than him? did that come up? he did chide me for not having predicted his victory or endorsed his position. but... to be fair to the president—elect, i don't think he has followed my journalism as closely as some others. thank you.
meanwhile, non—brexit, non—trump related things are going on in the world. the nhs continues to have its struggles. bbc radio shropshire has reported today that a sandwich shop has now refused to supply two hospitals in shrewsbury and telford, because the shop was told it couldn't be paid until the next financial year. other sandwiches are now having to be sourced. but — more importantly — in terms of a&e performance, we have new data. you may remember the government said it didn't want to give out weekly updates on how it's all going. but our policy editor, chris cook, has got his hands on the internal nhs figures for last week. chris, performance is actually improving? yes, if you look back to the first week of the year, the data that we only know because it got leaked to our colleagues. onjanuary 3rd, the nhs had a terrible day with only about 75% of a&e patients seen within four hours. remember, the bench mark for that we try and hit is 95%. what's happened in the intervening almost two weeks since january 3rd up to last night, is there has been a slow,
gradual drift back and it is up to 85% again. that is largely because the first week of the year is the busiest, because people put off going to hospital until they can get off work. who wants to go to hospital at christmas? so the rates drop. we now have less activity. are there any numbers suggesting the system is still vulnerable? yes, everything is in a bad place. 85% is a bad place. one number is the hospital occupancy figure, that is the number of beds in the system that are taken. it is about 95% at the moment. about 5% go to people medics would like to discharge, but they can't find anywhere to send them to. the reason that 95% is important is because of
queue theory, it transpires if you have a hospital with 10% spare beds, as opposed to 5%, it makes an great difference. there is a geometric progression, and it is a hospital is more likely to be over full if it has 96% full beds. these little differences are important and the system at the moment, if there is a cold snap or anything, it is in a vulnerable place. thank you. all parents are keen to keep their children from falling into the wrong crowd, and from succumbing to life's more dangerous pastimes. among those parents is the ambassador of the united arab emirates to russia. he has two boys, saif and abdullah, and he's just published a book of letters to them — letters to a young muslim, it's called. it's not about avoiding drugs or motorbikes — it tries to make sense of the temptations of islamic extremism and to encourage them
to reclaim islam from the bigots. letters to a young muslim. for my son saif. you are growing in a world that is radically different from the world of the 1970s and the 1980s in which i grew up. you are shown youtube videos of the mujahideen fighting the might of the soviet army in the 1980s. you are shown the views of the war in bosnia in the 1990s. more recent and shocking videos come from the aftermath of us invasion of iraq in 2003, where you can watch suicide bombing with powerful religious songs as accompaniment. we have a series of well—funded and persuasive voices who tell us daily that islam is under attack and that we need to be on the offensive. is this really the case? i do not believe so. these are shrill voices that have a warped
view of the world and have managed to acquire finances and credibility. sometimes you wonder whether there might not be another way in which we muslims can be good muslims and interact seamlessly with the multicultural, multi—coloured, fragmented world that we actually live in. islam is a religion of peace. so what kind of peace, and when and who decides? you will often hear statements made in the local mosque, or the 24—hour religious channels that mix the peaceful with the violence. and we are still only beginning to think about the consequences of this type of speech. the binary world isn't the only islamic world you can live in. there is much more grey in between the black and white that the religious scholars present us. much is presented as divine instruction, but in fact reflects choices that other people have made for us. omar saif ghobash is with me now.
thank you for coming. what is your theory for why this is an issue in islam now? why is there an anger thread in a smallish or some number of young and other muslims? i think it must have started at least 30 to a0 years ago. when i was a child it became clear. it is related to the palestinian/israeli issue without a doubt and that is a situation that has been transferred into the religious realm increasingly. the other issue is the disappointment of arabs with themselves. and what happens within the arab world transmits itself across the global islamic system. arabic is the language of islam, and in a sense theologians will frame the world in the arabic language and then go further. the demographics are said to have a big part, there is a young population and that can, the young tend to be more angry
and they can have these? yes, because of the tremendous uncertainty in the arab world and what we can achieve and what policies we can put into place feeds into frustrations. you present a manifesto for islam that is more inclusive and peaceful than some of the others, you say something interesting, i believe if we as muslims demonstrated grace and patience in the face of real or imagined slights, we will defuse an imosity. do you think the slights are imagined or do you think there are genuine grievances? this is the issue of extremism and islamaphobia. islamaphobia is something we don't want to see and the hatred
of muslims will transfer to other areas. some members of the community will use this to not look inward. i want to separate the issues and focus on the responsibilities that we as muslims have to each other and to the global community. how widespread is the islam that you're against? let's call it the bigoted islam. there is a small number of violent people, how far do the other issues... ? it is difficult to say, i'm trying to put a framework or a structure around the ideas that i believe would be prevalent if people would grasp them. i won't suggest how many, what the percentages are. ideas need to be simplified and put forward in a manner that are convincing.
unfortunately to this date i haven't felt the moderates and those interested in a more open approach have come up with their statements. you're an ambassador in russia, big changes going on in the middle east. you have a new president in the united states and then russia seems to have a new more dominant role in the arab world? yes, and obviously that is very important for us. i think what we have always tried to do, the emirates is a small country, we have tried to maintain open and clear relationships with the russians and the americans. we are very close to the american government and system. so what we want to do is we would like to see much greater understanding and co—operation between the americans and the russians on the middle east. we believe it is possible. and trump, are you going, is he going to be a good thing for the middle east? we don't have a choice in who is the us president and we deal with who is elected. you're a diplomat.
thank you. before we go. we all know the first words spoken on the moon, but less well—known are the last words. astronaut gene cernan was the last man to set foot on the moon, back in december 1972, and he died today aged 82. here is the hopeful speech he gave as he climbed back onboard the lunar module of apollo 17 for the last time. goodnight. this is dean, i am on the surface. for some time to come, but hopefully not too long into the future... i believe history will record that america's challenge of today has forged man's destiny of tomorrow. and as we leave the moon, we leave as we came, and, god willing, as we shall return.
with peace and hope for all mankind. godspeed the crew of apollo 17. good evening. if you arejust good evening. if you are just off to bed wondering what is in store for tomorrow's weather, more of the same in actualfact. some real to psy—tu rvy in actualfact. some real topsy—turvy weather conditions across the country. we had a little bit of snow from last week across the mountains of scotland, but with the mountains of scotland, but with the cloud, it was mild. 12 degrees the cloud, it was mild. 12 degrees the daytime high today. a different story south and east. a little bit of brighton is coming through, but it was cold across the essex and kent coasts. temperatures around
four or five celsius. that is because the cold air sitting through europe at the moment is just influencing the south—east corner. at the same time, around the high—pressure, a south—westerly wind driving in milderair high—pressure, a south—westerly wind driving in milder air across scotland. it leaves a mild start, only minimum of nine degrees, where is in the south—east, chilly. by nine o'clock in the morning, temperatures around 10 celsius. we will see cloud coming out of scotla nd will see cloud coming out of scotland are thick enough for the odd spot of shami light rain and drizzle. the same across north—west england and the isle of man —— showery. there will be some hill fog around as well with this cloud. into the south—eastern corner, a cold start. a light frost is temperatures hovered just below freezing in places. at least that is where we will see sunshine coming through again, integrity averages not really going to climb far, but it will be sunny. elsewhere, some breaks in the cloud across eastern scotland. if
that happens, temperatures may peek at 12 degrees. wipe the around double digits, ten across northern ireland and scotland, and five at best also. i suspect tuesday into wednesday, more of a hard frost developing. clear skies through the night and temperatures falling away. maybe some patchy fog as well. we could in rural spots get those of around minus five degrees. it stays mild and cloudy into the north. that divide will continue through daylight hours on wednesday. a lot of sunshine after a cold start across the south—east. thicker cloud and the odd bit of breeze and maybe and the odd bit of breeze and maybe a bit of hill fog around. highs of nine or 10 degrees. as we move through thursday into friday, things become a little more uniform. less sunshine in the south, but not quite as warm in the north. a lot of cloud. largely dry. top temperatures of around 7— eight degrees. but if
you do, sleep well, and enjoy your day tomorrow. goodbye. welcome to newsday, i'm sharanjit leyl in singapore. the headlines: the main suspect in the istanbul nightclub attack at new year were 39 died has been captured. china says it will take the gloves off and pursue strong countermeasures if donald trump continues to provoke it over taiwan. i'm kasia madera in london. rolling out the red carpet at davos. xi jingping becomes the first chinese leader to visit the world economic forum. and seeking out the local talent. beijing cracks down on the use of foreign footballers in the country's super league. live from our studios in singapore and london. this is